ben. Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Nah... he'd poop and pee all over the place! And so would the puppy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 ---------------- On 5/10/2005 10:53:03 PM ben. wrote: So, some guy gets bit by a dog when he's a kid. Now he fantasizes about running innocent animals over in his truck. I guess one nice thing about driving a Jeep (though to me they just shriek of latency), is that you can run critters over, and it won't cause damage to your vehicle. What's needed here is therapy, not legislation. One of you West Coasters go give the guy a hug or something. ---------------- Nope, you are very mistaken, I never fantasize about it. Never think about it actually. Think what you will, makes absolulty no difference to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 OK, you never think about it, but you just posted about it on the internet twice. Are you that good at repressing things? (Explains the Jeep...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Ok, I'll bite... Whats wrong with my jeep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Nothing at all, man! Just be yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 I am. I do. but why you doggen my rubicon? You called it "latent", then you said "explains the jeep" Sooooooooo. Again, there is something behind your posts that I'm not getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I like Jeeps that must be some sweet ride you got there mOOn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted May 11, 2005 Moderators Share Posted May 11, 2005 m00n, No disrespect, I understand where you're coming from. But you have said before this breed needs to be banned. You haven't addressed the issue that a different breed will just pop up in it's place. It is simply not a solution. It will not fix the problem. That's all I'm saying. And yes, if I or anyone in my family were attacked by any dog, I would want that dog destroyed. Just as I'd want justice for any person that harmed anyone I knew. If Steven drowned in a pond, I would want that pond filled with dirt. In the meantime, I will take precautions to keep him in my site, to watch the neighborhood for signs of free-roaming dogs and report them, teach him NOT to run from dogs in a panic, teach him to swim, teach him to not talk to strangers, etc. It's the best anyone can do. And go easy on those poor, stupid opossums, would ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 I don't seek them out, but if one happens to find it's way under my tire, well... Opps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 An observation.... What amazes me most about this debate is that we have here several posts from an individual (Royster) who has had more hands-on experience with this breed of animal in one month than all the rest of us could ever have in our entire lifetime. Yet somehow, his personal experience is trumped by hearsay or anecdotal evidence or experience with ONE pit bull or some article on the internet (where everything printed is true) or whatever from the rest of you guys. A reasonable person would say, "Gee Royster, I didn't realize it was that bad. Obviously you've had quite a bit experience. Hmmmm....maybe, just maybe, I should re-think my position." But no. Instead, folks entrench themselves. Sheesh....... But here's the juxtaposition, if someone was to come on this forum and start posting that Klipschorns were crap because they heard them once for a few minutes and that they've read they were horrible sounding and they had articles to prove it. And when challenged because this person didn't have first hand experience, they responded with more "data" supporting their position, you guys would be all over them like a cheap suit. And don't tell me otherwise because I've been here long enogh to have seen this happen. Lastly, dragon => it's just my opinion, but in reading many of your posts where you've displayed your adept ability to dispense back-handed compliments, innuendo, put-downs, condescending remarks, sarcasm, etc.; I believe you just might achieve a rarified position on this forum. You know, that of being a pompous ***. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted May 11, 2005 Moderators Share Posted May 11, 2005 Well, I'm a reasonable person. If Royster can show facts that by banning pit bulls as the solution: No other breed will be trained as vicious in their place Dog attacks will decline overall then maybe I can buy into the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 ---------------- On 5/11/2005 1:59:48 PM Tom Adams wrote: Lastly, dragon => it's just my opinion, but in reading many of your posts where you've displayed your adept ability to dispense back-handed compliments, innuendo, put-downs, condescending remarks, sarcasm, etc.; I believe you just might achieve a rarified position on this forum. You know, that of being a pompous ***. Tom ---------------- I had someone else in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 ---------------- On 5/11/2005 2:26:30 PM Amy Unger wrote: Well, I'm a reasonable person. If Royster can show facts that by banning pit bulls as the solution: No other breed will be trained as vicious in their place Dog attacks will decline overall then maybe I can buy into the argument. ---------------- Sheesh........ Women. Can't live with them...... Can't live with them. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 As with Royster, I have gone along on raids for dog fighting. I have seen Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Cocker Spaniels (yes I did say that), Dobermans, even mongrels. About 60 % are in such a state that they need to be put right down. The others, we have people in the area that will work with them former Academy trainers or after the time allowed they are killed. No nicey words. The owners - a couple hundred dollar fine and 50 hours community service. A main reason for the publicity of the pit bull is the strength in their jaws. Once they bite. But even if you banned all dogs, you still have cock fighting and they will follow you down the street also. I sympathize, maybe a change can come about for more responsibility by the owners. It isn't just one dollar bills that the particpant owners are holding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted May 11, 2005 Moderators Share Posted May 11, 2005 ---------------- On 5/11/2005 3:04:35 PM Tom Adams wrote: Sheesh........ Women. Can't live with them...... Can't live with them. Tom ---------------- HEY! I resent that! Men. Can't live with em. Can't get them to quit training dogs to be vicious so they can look macho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Lastly, dragon => it's just my opinion, but in reading many of your posts where you've displayed your adept ability to dispense back-handed compliments, innuendo, put-downs, condescending remarks, sarcasm, etc.; I believe you just might achieve a rarified position on this forum. You know, that of being a pompous ***. Tom ---------------- Its nice to know that by adding "it's just my opinion" that you attempt to obsolve yourself of what you accuse others of doing! But nice try. And because you cannot interpret my intent accurately, and you have made even less of an effort to ask me for clarification, you display your lack of understanding of my dry and sardonic wit. Like it or not, your ignorance doesn't make me stupid. But it does put at risk the freedoms of RESPONSIBLE citizens! This is a classic case of freedom versus responsibility and the role of the government in a free society! And while I have NEVER in any way condoned the irresponsible behavior by any dogowner, nor anyone else for that matter, it bothers me more that some would carte blanche try to ban a particular 'life form'! And based ONLY on anecdotal evidence and out of context reporting - and in direct opposition to reports and studies by RESPONSIBLE and reputable authorites on dog behavior which you have simply dismissed as "simply more statistics", selectively ignored them to foster your own position! I will continue to support responsible behavior by free persons in opposition to you or any other group attempting to ban an animal or a person or an item rather then to judge actions. Everything has the potential for good or evil, and it is the nature of the contextual action that determines whether some behavior should be restricted. And I am just as cognizant of the potential of the majority to over step its authority! And in this respect, a breed of dog, or the race or creed of a person is no different. The potential for abuse of authority is to be acknowledged and prevented JUST as the abuse of irresponsible people is to be effected by the rule of law. And I really don't care what the specific concern may be. The answer is not to restrict the freedoms of the majority to control the minority of irresponsible people! You place restrictions on irresponsible behavior instead! And you focus on the behavior of those who would act irresponsibly! Because a few drive drunk, you do not have to ban all alcohol, or to ban cars! You enforce restrictions against those who drive drunk! And because a group of people are irresponsible with the care training and supervison of dogs, or guns, or cars, or beer, or fire, or whatever, the law should restrict the ABUSIVE behavior and not simply having a dog or a gun or a beer or whatever the particular 'thing' is upon which you choose to focus! And whether you see the logical connection or not, the same erroneous thinking has grown far too easily into the propensity for some to self-righteously propose banning races and creeds in our all too recent past, not to mention the history of humankind! All in the name of preventing exceptional abuses! Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the writings of individuals such as von Hayek or, Milton Friedman, or Karl Hess, or the Cato Institute or any of a plethora of authors who might better explain the concept! Or may I simply refer you to the underlying concept behind the Bill of Rights whose SOLE purpose is to RESTRAIN the government and the majority from overstepping its bounds! ---------------- On <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />5/10/2005 9:34:05 PM m00n wrote: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> ---------------- On 5/10/2005 1:03:29 PM dragonfyr wrote: The problem is not limited to a particular breed of dog. It is the irresponsible ownership that shirks the responsibility that owning a dog entails that is the true source of the problem. ---------------- You are not seeing the real issue here. The problem is that both are responsible. As hard as you try to create and enforce laws that are stricter, it's not going to change the fact that there are and always will be stupid owners. For that matter, people don't necessarly have to be stupid, how about the fact that there are responsible owners and yet one small slip up and a tragedy happens.1 It does not matter anyway. You guys will get to keep it your way. More and more people will continue to be brutally attacked, more and more people will be killed by these dogs. I must say however, it would be interesting to hear your new view in the event you were attacked by one of these dogs.2 ---------------- 1.) I believe that you miss my point. To repeat: This is a classic case of freedom versus responsibility and the role of the government in a free society! It is easy to ban that which can be abused. And you chose to focus on one thing. The problem is, every group focuses on one or several things! Different things! And because a small group abuses their responsibility, these 'well-meaning' groups want to punish all, including the responsible people, rather then to focus on the irresponsible behavior! You will say that you only focus on one thing, but the other groups do too. And the way you 'solve' the problem is by limiting the freedom of all people, both those that abuse a freedom as well as those who are responsible. The problem is, that this desire to control things does not stop with only one 'thing'! As each group has their own list of concerns! And everything has the ability to be abused! And I really don't care what the specific concern may be. The answer is not to restrict the freedoms of the majority to control the minority of irresponsible people! Instead, you place restrictions on irresponsible behavior! And you focus on the behavior of those who would act irresponsibly! Because a few drive drunk, you do not have to ban all alcohol, or to ban cars, nor to ban people! You enforce restrictions against those who drive drunk! And because a group of people are irresponsible with the care training and supervison of dogs, or guns, or cars, or beer, or fire, or whatever, the law should restrict the ABUSIVE behavior and not simply ban having a dog or a gun or a beer or whatever the particular 'thing' is upon which you choose to focus! The flaw here is that each group says that only their concerns will be enacted. They do not see the precedent that they set. And this is exactly what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is about. No responsible person supports irresponsible behavior! Restrict and enforce the rules against irresponsible behavior! What frustrates me is that each time we try to make the point that the concept is at issue, someone replies that somehow banning a particular dog is somehow different then banning a gun or a car or whatever they chose to focus on! And if someone stands up and speaks up for the rights of the responsible folks who do not abuse their social responsibility, too many accuse them of supporting the irresponsible behavior of the minority! And this is nonsense! I can make the same case, however ridiculous, that says a particular group or race or creed of people are more prone to commit violent crime, or that those in a particular part of town are more likely to commit violent crime and subsequently propose the same type of solution that many do who are proposing the banning of a breed of dogs. What group is it this week? The Latinos in East LA, or the Blacks in Detroit, or the Russians in NYC, or the (fill in the blank)....??? So how long are we going to tolerate "More and more people ... continu(ing) to be brutally attacked, (and) more and more people will be(ing) killed by these (groups)"? Sound familiar? It should! So, should we ban the entire category because of the likelihood of a certain minorities choice to commit serious crimes or death? Of course not! (Un)common sense says that you focus on the irresponsible elements in these groups! The danger is the precedent. As it legally determines what other groups may do. And, yes! The majority can become the source of tyranny! After all, too often throughout history one group of 'responsible' people have decided that a particular race or group of people are fundamentally evil as well! And instead of focusing on a particular behavior, they ban the entire group! But of course these groups favoring restrictions claim that this can never happen! Really? And many will yell and scream that that is different from banning a dog. No it is not! It is simply that the particular focus is different! The rationale is the same! What is amazing is that this concept has to be 'rediscovered' every day! 2.) And as far as the arrogant position of assuming that one has some superior position based upon having experienced something, not only is this position ridiculous, but I suggest you do alittle more homework before you pass judgement on other's experiences before displaying your ignorance! I have personally had a very interesting encounter with a pack of dogs that was on a killing spree that had brought down two cows and then they decided that I would be a fun target when I went to feed cattle while I was living on a small farm shortly after college! And it was only the fact that I carried an old sledge handle normally used for moving cattle and leveraging bales of hay that saved my posterior! Ban all dogs? There were several breeds! Which ones should we ban!? The problem was that irreponsible PEOPLE let their dogs run unsupervised! And this doesn't even address the concept that the dog is being banned because it doesn't follow human laws! What next, laws governing shark behavior? Or bird behavior? Maybe if we had remedial classes to augment their reading skills! Laws pertain to HUMAN behavior! And as a teenager, my younger brother and I encountered a Standard Poodle almost the size of a Great Dane that ended up mauling catching my brother and biting him on the thigh sufficiently so that he had to have reconstructive surgery to repair the damage as I tried to beat the daylights out of the dog to try to get him off my brother. And I do not blame the dog! It was protecting what it thought was its territory in an unfenced yard where it's OWNERS had abdicated their responsibility and left it to run unsupervised! I have also been on the other side in that I owned a male doberman who qualified as a Shutzhund and competed in obedience trials. Responsible? He was better behaved then most of the people I encountered! Smarter too! Well I dealt with far too many well meaning folks who wanted to ban all Dobs back in the 70's as they decided they were too dangerous after the sensational and bogus movies like the one in which James Brolin was stuck in Macy's overnight during Xmas and was nearly torn to shreds by the security dogs that they let run the place at night! Was it real? Hell no! It was complete BS, but you couldn't tell the well meaning do gooders that! The fact that a completely trained and well-behaved Dob was used to PRETEND that they were monsters was completely missed! They were going to save humanity! But this same group would ban Boris Karloff for pretending to be a monster too! And I still prefer to protect the freedom and the right of responsible people to own these dogs! But I am vehemenently opposed to people abdicating their responsibilities! And we all have a responsibility, both as dog owners and as civilians to see that these rules are present, and to see that they are enforced! What I find curious is that so many here have personal stories of so many of these dogs running wild and attacking people. And they continue to do so!!!!!! I am not aware of anyplace in the US that does not have dog ordinances requiring the control of dogs. And we even hear of police officers who 'continually' and 'daily' encounter marauding dogs attacking them. So we know where many of these are. And we know that there is precedence for their attacking others. Hmmm. And they continue to be allowed to do this.????? May I sincerely ask, no, SCREAM why the heck they have not been reported, or if they have, why the authorities have not responded appropriately?????? And if the police have encountered this, what is done to effectively bring the dogs under control and the owners to court? And if people know that these irresponsible owners and dangerous dogs are present, why are they choosing to continue to walk or travel where they expose themselves to repeated attacks? If this is the case, I dare say, to the howls of many, why have those people not filed complaints? Or, if the laws are not enforced, why have the people not raised heck to have them effectively enforced!? And at least I don't think it cute to wantonly kill harmless animals for sport while complaining about animals hurting others! Such self-righteous insanity. Ironically, it seems that my friends in Russia, the Ukraine and Romania with whom I regularly deal have a better understanding of the perils of your groupthink then too many here do! A "pompous ***"? Think what you wish. And I am sorry you cannot appreciate my dry humor nor my intent. But you Tom, are the ONLY person thus far who has personally attacked anyone here! And while there are many things which I will admit to not knowing, I can only aspire to the lofty heights that constitute your position of an unqualified ***! There, I can play by your rules as well, however ridiculous they are! So should we now propose banning all people on the basis of exceptional personal action? I guess YOU would! But I don't propose restricting others freedoms based upon the abuses of the few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts